Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2009 17:57:57 GMT
Of course, there really is no clear answer, when a question that is clearly subjective to opinion is posed. It's a hobby of passion as I've stated before, and to be passionate about something usually mean's you have a strong opinion. You know, I really didn't think I was asking a subjective question. In fact, the question is where is the $$ line between measurable improvement and subjective perception? I think the simplest measurable line is the diference between a brittle stainless steel sword blade, a shiny, polished but untempered mild steel blade and a tempered steel high carbon blade. The next clear line (or maybe the first) is the difference between flimsy rat tail tangs and a full tang with a threaded or peened pommel. There is a pretty clear price line between swords built one way or the other.
|
|
|
Post by Brian of DBK on Sept 18, 2009 18:29:03 GMT
Of course, there really is no clear answer, when a question that is clearly subjective to opinion is posed. It's a hobby of passion as I've stated before, and to be passionate about something usually mean's you have a strong opinion. You know, I really didn't think I was asking a subjective question. In fact, the question is where is the $$ line between measurable improvement and subjective perception? I think the simplest measurable line is the diference between a brittle stainless steel sword blade, a shiny, polished but untempered mild steel blade and a tempered steel high carbon blade. The next clear line (or maybe the first) is the difference between flimsy rat tail tangs and a full tang with a threaded or peened pommel. There is a pretty clear price line between swords built one way or the other. You're question has clearly been answered with mostly subjective opinion's thus far. You're initial question is subjective to opinion by it's very nature being one based upon opinion to begin with, as the subject matter isn't as clear as black & white. It's actually based upon value both from a manufacturer & consumer perspective, which is widely different from person to person and company to company. Your question cannot be answered logically, or in factual presentation because everything in this industry is based upon hand-crafted labor & market value. Both of which are driven by opinion, reputation, labor & material cost, convenience and location. Sword companies in America can't compete with labor cost's in India for example, yet they must try to compete despite one being superior to another in quality. Edit: in order to develop the hard line answer's you seek, you have to have data to determine which is better, and a justifiable cost ratio.
|
|
|
Post by Kilted Cossack on Sept 18, 2009 18:49:30 GMT
I'm really enjoying this thread. It's nice to see people putting forth what's "worth it" to them, and discussing things civilly. Up SBG!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2009 19:39:33 GMT
You're question has clearly been answered with mostly subjective opinion's thus far. You're initial question is subjective to opinion by it's very nature being one based upon opinion to begin with, as the subject matter isn't as clear as black & white. It's actually based upon value both from a manufacturer & consumer perspective, which is widely different from person to person and company to company. Your question cannot be answered logically, or in factual presentation because everything in this industry is based upon hand-crafted labor & market value. Both of which are driven by opinion, reputation, labor & material cost, convenience and location. Sword companies in America can't compete with labor cost's in India for example, yet they must try to compete despite one being superior to another in quality. Edit: in order to develop the hard line answer's you seek, you have to have data to determine which is better, and a justifiable cost ratio. Hooray for logic! Well said, Brian.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2009 20:19:25 GMT
Is a 600 dollar sword twice as good as a 300 dollar sword? depends on the swords, doesn't it? In terms of European swords you can buy a $300-$350 sword today that, speaking in terms of function and historical accuracy, is better than any reproduction sword you could have bought thirty years ago, at any price and there were people selling $6000 swords that long ago.
fifteen years ago if you asked if a $600 custom was three times as good as a $200 Museum rep sword the answer would have been, "absolutely" because MRL didn't produce anything for $200 that qualified as a good sword at that time. But $600 would have bought you a very nice, functional custom sword.
Now? Education has changed the manufacturers and the market. These days $300-$400 will buy you a good quality European sword if you shop carefully enough. From there up it's a sliding scale of diminishing returns; each incremental improvement is proportionally more expensive. But the point at which performance stops improving and you start paying for other things like esthetics? Probably somewhere between $900-$1200 US. Somewhere in that range the improvements in performance become so small that mere mortals are no longer able to notice or take advantage of them.
Then lets remember- value is, as everyone keeps saying, very much in the eye of the beholder. Some people will never understand spending $1200-$1600 on a sword. Others will never understand why people buy garbage swords in the 0-$250 price range. In each case it's because of the individual's perception of value.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2009 20:36:09 GMT
Whuups- thought that I'd better clarify that last statement! I did not mean to say that all $250 and under swords are garbage- I fence with a Hanwei rapier that costs less than that and I certainly wouldn't if I thought that it were garbage! But there are garbage swords and people do buy them- and others will never understand that decision.
|
|
|
Post by shadowhowler on Sept 18, 2009 20:43:47 GMT
Sean, if you were to become a multi-millionnaire (or worse yet, were born to it), I think eventually you'd be wipin your ass with c-notes and scoffing at wines that cost LESS than $1000...just my opinion, of course. lol Hah! If I were bore into money, maybe, but I'd be a very different man then I am today... but if I come into money sometime in my life, I will never be that way... because I will always remember what it was like to be 13, have NOTHING, live in a park and go to school and work and eat nothing but Tom Ramen... no, I fell very confident I would never see the value in a 1k bottle of wine or beer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2009 20:45:32 GMT
Is a 600 dollar sword twice as good as a 300 dollar sword? depends on the swords, doesn't it? In terms of European swords you can buy a $300-$350 sword today that, speaking in terms of function and historical accuracy, is better than any reproduction sword you could have bought thirty years ago, at any price and there were people selling $6000 swords that long ago. fifteen years ago if you asked if a $600 custom was three times as good as a $200 Museum rep sword the answer would have been, "absolutely" because MRL didn't produce anything for $200 that qualified as a good sword at that time. But $600 would have bought you a very nice, functional custom sword. Now? Education has changed the manufacturers and the market. These days $300-$400 will buy you a good quality European sword if you shop carefully enough. From there up it's a sliding scale of diminishing returns; each incremental improvement is proportionally more expensive. But the point at which performance stops improving and you start paying for other things like esthetics? Probably somewhere between $900-$1200 US. Somewhere in that range the improvements in performance become so small that mere mortals are no longer able to notice or take advantage of them. Then lets remember- value is, as everyone keeps saying, very much in the eye of the beholder. Some people will never understand spending $1200-$1600 on a sword. Others will never understand why people buy garbage swords in the 0-$250 price range. In each case it's because of the individual's perception of value. Excellent! Exactly the kind of answer I was looking for! That sliding scale of diminishing returns is what the whole wine analogy was about. ;D You get the whole damn box of cigars! Beyond a certain dollar value, swords are like most everything else; one begins to pay more for the "name/exclusivity/artistry" than for any real physical improvement. Does a $10,000 Rolex keep time better tha my $600 Seiko? Will it outlast it? Maybe, maybe not. My Seiko will keep better time AND outlast a $15.00 WalMart watch because it is built t a higher standard of quality. The Rolex is built to a higher standard of quality than my Seiko, but the arguable point is whether that price difference is based on quality or exclusivity. ;D
|
|
|
Post by shadowhowler on Sept 18, 2009 20:51:29 GMT
Well, as I said before, Tinker and I had a great conversation about this very subject awhile ago, and he helped open my eyes to a few things... so I was waiting for his post in this thread. The man knows what he is talking about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2009 5:08:18 GMT
I rate anything under $100 junk too. The top of my scale is $400- stretching to $500 for some larger swords. Beyond that, I think you have hit a point of diminishing returns. For those who have not studied economics, that means that for each additional dollar you get less satisfaction. There is still an increase... but the increase becomes less and less. I think $200 to $300 is the sweat-spot were you will get the best value for your dollar. Realistically, what do you want from a sword??? You want it to cut tatami? Cut water bottles? Take a beating on a Tire-Pell? Be of a certain weight and balance? Not rattle? Beyond that, I don't think most people are sensitive enough to feel the difference. Not that the difference is not there... but most of us (or me specifically) can't tell. So your analogy is correct Gearloose. Its just that some of us have more sensitive taste buds By the way... my watch for the dollar is Citizen. Yeah... I've been told that Rolex and Omega do something better... I can't understand what.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2009 4:43:15 GMT
This is a really interesting question, and a fascinating discussion. I think gear is asking about the intrinsic value of a sword, where the intrinsic value is the value based on the blade itself. Take away the name, the brand, the rep - all those intangibles and compare the blades standing on their own merits. I think that, in general, you will find that a $1,500 blade is not 3x the blade as a $500 blade, and nor is it 5x the value of a $300 blade. It's reasonable to expect that it is a better blade, but not that there is a direct 1 to 1 relationship with price. Remember that built into the price is brand name, reputation, and things like that. An Albion is going to be more expensive than a Hanwei Tinker equivalent because, at a very basic level, people are willing to pay more for an Albion. Btw, I only use the Hanwei Tinker as an example because I just bought one . I agree with what Tom said, there are many different aspects to a blade which can affect the price. Things like blade geometry and taper can make a big difference, but after a certain point you really need to be an expert to tell what those differences are because then skill in not just creating the blade, but also in using the blade, becomes a more integral part of the value of the blade. Okay, so here's where I'm going to take gear's question completely out of context. If we talking only about performance vs. value, what about historical weapons? Not historically accurate replica's, but actual historical weapons. I'm talking about the 18c wootz khanda you can get vs the modern replica made with the latest technology. Chances are the cheaper, modern weapon which cost you $300 will perform better than the $2,000 wootz khanda. I'm pretty sure the wootz blade can stand up to pretty much everything I put the modern replica through in the normal course of use (this does not include chopping through a chair or cutting kindling for the fire). If it comes to defending myself with it I think it will do just as well. But based only performance it is not 7x the sword. Keep in mind we are only talking about functionality, here. Strip away the things that are contributing to the wootz blade's value: it's 300 years old, it's wootz, it is a genuine piece of history. To use the wine analogy: consider a bottle of Opus 1 and a bottle of George Hendry. Opus 1 is a blend which costs more than $100/bottle, but the George Hendry makes up 80% of the Opus 1 and, at least when I got mine, only cost me $10 a bottle. Opus 1 is not 10x the wine as the Hendry, but people are willing to pay that much more for it. Okay, I'm going to shut up now as I could probably write a full paper on this topic.
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Sept 24, 2009 6:58:04 GMT
here-in lies a very interesting point about historical swords. while SOME of them were made by smiths of super-artist-awesome level and were very good even by today's standards many, and maybe even most, surviving swords would not even be considered fully functional by today's reproduction market. I have read a few articles that spoke of historic being all over the place in hardness from numbers as low as 20's (or even not yet ON the RC scale) to numers in the 50's. and these hard and soft spots would be distributed randomly throughout the sword. Some surviving swords are not even hardened. so what's the story there? was it a display piece? or did some smithies not harden them? and yet these swords were taken on to the field of battle. other swords from the middle ages were superb and probably the equal of anything made by Gus Trim or Tinker, etc.
now I don't know about Wootz since there is so much hype and mystery surrounding it but I'll bet you some of them were great weapons and some were lousy.
the medieval European mind, it would seem, had VERY different goals for reliability and repeatability than our modern minds. this point could open up an entire web site based on research and discussion etc. this is a big can o worms.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2009 15:37:27 GMT
As far as the scale of what is a good value I think that depends on what you are looking for in a sword. If you only need a sword to serve as a decorative piece... well then it does not make sense to spend more then $50. (Rat-tails).
If you plan to do mostly pell work with it and some general cutting, well then I think you will get your best value in the $200 to $300 range. (Windlass, Gen2, DarkSword...)
If you want to do performance cutting... I think that you best value will be in the $300-$500 range. (A-trim)
If you are looking for historical accuracy... then I think you need to spend more then $500 to be happy (Albion).
If your main interest in functionality, this it is a waste of money to pay extra for an Albion. If however you main interest is historical accuracy, then you will not be satisfied with an A-trim.
Then there are those will can only be happy with a historical original...
So the scale slides depending on what you value... or what you want to do with the sword. I think it makes all the sense in the world to have two swords of the type you like. One for about $200 for pell work and one for $400 for cutting only.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2009 15:59:24 GMT
Very interesting thread ! Lot of good facts had been said! I'll try to say smart things too...try... I totally agree that in terms of quality the ratio cost/quality gets more & more expensive for a slight increase in terms of quality, measurable or not. But this increase could be very hard to obtain and even to judge... If I would have a 20000 $ katana with my rookie level in batto jutsu and the use I have for it (no i don't do field battle to death every day...) ...would I be really able to judge ? That why your comparison with wine is interesting... Above a certain level, you need yourself a good or very good level of expertise... And even if... aboce this level it's no more a matter of quality but art, soul, reaching the perfection...And only few people can do that...in fact, art is just an idea.... Best value in my view, but high prices ! Like Wines I will finish about wine and alcohol. As a french (and well tought one !) I looove wine... It took me nearly 15 years (strating at 12!) to begin to appreciate the real value of a wine... Had learn both taste (myself) and the how-to (the technic) but for god's sake, i would give hundreds of cheap bottles to feel again 35 years old bourgogne (or a Hennessy paradis for cognac lovers) On the other hand, I do appreciate each wine for itself with its own qualities... llike blades...or women (but these are deadly so i take care !!)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2009 23:10:06 GMT
here-in lies a very interesting point about historical swords. while SOME of them were made by smiths of super-artist-awesome level and were very good even by today's standards many, and maybe even most, surviving swords would not even be considered fully functional by today's reproduction market. I have read a few articles that spoke of historic being all over the place in hardness from numbers as low as 20's (or even not yet ON the RC scale) to numers in the 50's. and these hard and soft spots would be distributed randomly throughout the sword. Some surviving swords are not even hardened. so what's the story there? was it a display piece? or did some smithies not harden them? and yet these swords were taken on to the field of battle. other swords from the middle ages were superb and probably the equal of anything made by Gus Trim or Tinker, etc. now I don't know about Wootz since there is so much hype and mystery surrounding it but I'll bet you some of them were great weapons and some were lousy. the medieval European mind, it would seem, had VERY different goals for reliability and repeatability than our modern minds. this point could open up an entire web site based on research and discussion etc. this is a big can o worms. Peter Johnsson once wrote regarding the celtic swords which are mostly found unhardened that unhardened swords we find might be ritually "killed". Some viking blades are "killed both by annealing and bending in S shape or breaking. But that probably couldn't be explanation for swords from Christian era.
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Sept 25, 2009 5:32:44 GMT
Ritualistically killed swords. . . THERE's an idea I have not hit upon before. how VERY interesting. I almost didn't read this thread thinking it was pretty much spent, now I'm glad I did. I don't know why this has not occured to me but I can certainly see it.
HOWEVER, I think the article I was reading (I'm sorry I can't seem to find it right now) was of the opinion that the lack of hardening on most of the swords examined was due to a steel content that would not allow hardening.
|
|
|
Post by kidcasanova on Sept 25, 2009 5:41:17 GMT
A lot of people consider our current high-end production swords (barring customs) to be the equivalent of munitions-grade swords of that era. I'm not sure if I share that same mentality, but I find it entirely possible, since (aside form our advancements in metallurgy) we have only really been rediscovering the sword for a couple decades, whereas they had centuries of practice and knowledge to pull from. I think our only real improvements come from quality, consistent steel and controlled heat treat/temper.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2009 10:49:23 GMT
They touched a little on it in Reclaiming the Blade with Paul Champagne saying he wouldnt want to be the smith that the brother of the customer came back to with a broken sword and said "Hey why did you make my brothers sword to hard and brittle rather then softer to take a set and still be usable"
|
|